Makes sense. Bears lose at home to a mediocre Eagles team that made so many errors themselves that they were practically giving the game to Chicago, but lets ignore this and assume a road victory over the Rams so we can then claim a hypothetical road win over the Saints.

Meanwhile, even though Trubisky has been below average on the road and will be facing better competition than Crevon LeBlanc, lets assume that Trubisky would be getting 'better' with each game.

Sounds like it would be fair to say that this thread exceeded expectations that I had after reading the OP, but as the thread went on I expected more.

Not assuming victory at all. I am saying you can't assume defeat as didshe appeared to be assuming. Every game is different. Us struggling against the Eagles proves nothing going forward.

Didshe in the other thread was suggesting that Trubs would play better after his first playoff game because of all that playoff debut nonsense so was just saying his argument here seemed inconsistent with the one he made in the other thread.

You put words in my mouth by saying that I said that there was no way we could win it all. I merely said it was unlikely.

Also, how we play vs the Eagles DOES matter how we would play vs other teams. You are living in a fantasy land.

No you said we would mostly like have to play a Rams team better than us and mostly likely then play the Saints. You did not actually say defeating them was unlikely. In fact, you're "I just never bought into us being good enough to win it all this year," suggests we didn't have a chance hence why I responded. If you actually said "unlikely" then I probably don't respond. However, can chalk that up to miscommunication.

If the Eagles game was the Superbowl and we lost like we did when we were the better team, then I would be as disappointed as you.

Looking at it realistically though, we had a very young QB who still needs to grow. Had we won, we most likely would have been playing a Rams team that is better than us who had the experience of losing in the playoffs last year, and if we somehow made it out of that game, most likely a Saints team who is outstanding in that dome. I just never bought into us being good enough to win it all this year.

The best indicator of future performance is near past performance....while every NFL game is different, making taking the position that the Bears probably would not get by the Rams let alone the Saints is well within reason based on how the Bears played this year.

The best indicator of future performance is near past performance....while every NFL game is different, making taking the position that the Bears probably would not get by the Rams let alone the Saints is well within reason based on how the Bears played this year.

We beat the Rams a few weeks ago and totally dominated them. Yes at home but odd to assume a team so thoroughly dominated magically scores a ton of points the next time around. Our margin for error is pretty great as while I don't think we hold them to 6 again, I also don't think Trubs looks as atrocious as he did that night either.

That clearly to me means we would be unlikely to win the Superbowl yet it would still be possible. Anything is possible ofcourse.

Again I found it strange a team that scored 6 points is somehow better than us. Could they be better than us at their home? Maybe. But we didn't merely win a close match. Our best (D) destroyed their best (O) despite how horrid Trubs was. The dude couldn't play any worse and yet the Rams still really had zero shot of winning the game.